On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 09:57:43AM +0000, Simon King wrote:
> Personally, I would not hesitate to use these existing base classes
> (sage.rings.ring.Ring for example) for things that are guaranteed to be
> rings. Of course, if the actual algebraic structure depends on
> parameters, then one must use a more basic base class.
> ...
>
> In the case of elements, I would tend more clearly towards using cythoned
> base classes than in the case of parents. After all, Parents are containers,
> while elements do the actual work and thus need speed.
> ...
Funny, I had exactly the same discussion yesterday. I am apparently
not lazy enough, and getting bitten by it: I should have written
something about this in the documentation a long time ago. I started
doing this today, and will post a ticket probably tomorrow.
Cheers,
Nicolas
--
Nicolas M. Thiéry "Isil" <nthi...@users.sf.net>
http://Nicolas.Thiery.name/
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"sage-devel" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
